This isn't a peer reviewed study, it's a submitted abstract. The sole name on the paper is someone who sells psudoscience plant-based debunked theories that the majority of our health issues come from lectins. He "authors papers" for Gwyneth Paltrow's weird publications. The guy sells supplements based on his scaremongering research to fringe-groups who like the idea of plant-based medicine, I don't trust his opinion or his bias with data in any non-peer reviewed studies. If there's something to this wait for a real research group to come out and say it - if there's a chance of world-changing science that will happen (would have already happened).

>The sole name on the paper is someone who sells psudoscience plant-based debunked theories that the majority of our health issues come from lectins

A professional cardiologist with decades of experience who now runs his own cardiology practice. Do you feel you're more qualified to assess his qualifications than the editors of Circulation just because you read a wikipedia article?

>psudoscience plant-based debunked theories

He has published papers demonstrating health improvements in patients after treatment, which is more than can be said of most supplements. The absence of large RCTs for something does not mean it's been "debunked".

> If there's something to this wait for a real research group to come out and say it - if there's a chance of world-changing science that will happen (would have already happened).

You understand doctors have been fired for questioning the safety of coronavirus vaccines? You understand that publically-funded research groups risk having their funding withdrawn if they question the safety of the coronavirus vaccine?

Yeah, I'm sorry, this is the classic pseudoscience narrative. Somehow everyone else is wrong because of <insert conspiracy here> except this one guy who somehow figured out the truth.

Trust the experts... No not those experts

I read criticisms about him in a few other places too. Either way - if there’s something huge to be found here it’ll be found my many teams

Yep, whenever you see something that "just questions the medical science" getting heavily promoted, follow the money. You'll very likely eventually find the link to the sale of food supplements, essential oils, Homeopathy, Crystal Healing, cleansing and detox, or other "alternative medicines".

You should probably read the "Expression of Concern" that the AHA has already attached to that abstract (it's a link under the title); namely the part that says "...there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used." (They also mention the typographical errors, but I didn't put that at the forefront because that may be a formatting issue and not the researcher's fault.)

Also, and this is something I'm not clear on, but is this just an abstract? It doesn't seem like there's an associated paper or any data beyond what's mentioned there.

There's a few other issues, too; like, for example, they don't compare mRNA vaccine recipients to people who have recovered from COVID-19 (one would expect that a test that measures inflammation would see increased inflammation in both populations); or that, frankly, the PULS test the publishing doctor developed doesn't seem to explain how it turns a set of arbitrary biological markers into a score that correlates to risk of heart issues.

I would, at best, say that this abstract could be used to establish a hypothesis for a future study. On its own, it tells me basically nothing.

>Also, and this is something I'm not clear on, but is this just an abstract? It doesn't seem like there's an associated paper or any data beyond what's mentioned there.

It's from a report presented at the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions 2021; https://www.thecardiologyadvisor.com/home/topics/acs/acute-c... . Presumably the actual paper is upcoming.

>"...there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used."

Presumably deeper analysis will be presented in the actual paper. The author claims the data is from 566 people at a preventative cardiology practice, so unless the PULS measurements have an incredibly high degree of variance, it'd be quite unlikely to see such a large increase in the underlying factors measured purely by chance when there are 500+ samples.

>they don't compare mRNA vaccine recipients to people who have recovered from COVID-19

This would be useful for comparing the relative safety of the mRNA vaccines vs getting covid. Such comparison is however not necessary to assess the safety of mRNA vaccines; an mRNA vaccine does not become safe just because covid is more dangerous. The absolute, not relative, risk is important to know as even if the risk of covid is greater, the chance of getting covid is not 100%. And with regular boosters, one might be exposed to the risk of the mRNA vaccine more often than one is exposed to the risk of covid.

> the PULS test the publishing doctor developed doesn't seem to explain how it turns a set of arbitrary biological markers into a score that correlates to risk of heart issues

https://pulstest.com/articles/analytical-performance the PULS test "measures the most clinically-significant protein biomarkers that measure the body's immune system response to arterial injury". There's peer-reviewed research demonstrating its effectiveness: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23530883/.

"The original studies for the PULS Cardiac Test were initiated at Stanford University and Kaiser Permanente. Researchers analyzed gene expression profiles in the lesions of mouse models of ACS (mice do not form hard plaque) . Over 250 candidate proteins were identified in mice lesions and many of them were shown to be conserved in humans by analysis of soft lesions during CABG. The number of biomarker candidates was narrowed from 50 to 9 pathways during additional studies. Various permutations of these biomarkers with existing biomarkers like LP-PLA2 and hsCRP, and global risk factors were tested by 3 software systems (Akaike, Bayesian, and Drop-inDeviance) to predict a 5 year risk of ACS. This process resulted in all three systems identifying the same 9 biomarkers and 4 global risk factors (age, sex, diabetic status, and family history). These biomarkers and global risk factors were then incorporated into a benchmark algorithm format with performance superior to gold standard measures of risk such as Framingham, Reynolds, etc. The resulting algorithm yielded a clinical net reclassification index of 43% (this index penalizes an algorithm for falsely up-classifying and down-classifying patients; values above 10% when compared to Framingham are considered good). The algorithm (PULS) was then independently validated by the NIH NHLBI group in MESA which confirmed the findings. These clinical trials were all longitudinal outcome-based studies."

What I wonder with this (and other warnings about vaccine safety)

mRNA vaccines have been administered to millions of people around the world. A sizable percentage had the first shot six months ago or longer.

The effects the author is warning against also occur supposedly with high probability and across age groups and sex. (He makes no mentions about pre-existing conditions, which would probably be important: usually, you visit a cardiologist for a reason)

If there was actually an increased risk of e.g. ACS, shouldn't we have seen a significant increase in actual ACS cases among vaccinated by now? Wouldn't this have been detected during the clinical trials?

I don't read that as them not being safe. They're trying to explain why there's an increase in some symptoms, symptoms we already know about, post vaccine.

Sadly I can't dig too much into that paper because the page is being really buggy.

But having had three shots now and no symptoms I've stopped really caring much to hear any fear mongering. I'm a lot more concerned by new variants.

I'm in the opposite bucket regarding symptoms unfortunately. First shot gave somewhat unusual symptoms which were brushed off. Only after the left side of my face went numb after shot two did they consider allergic reaction.

The side effects of the vaccines, while generally not that severe, are very real. Discounting them just because you were lucky isn't the best way to go about it imo.

I'm not looking forward to the mandatory booster.

I'm not discounting the side effects, I'm saying they're very rare and don't personally impact me so I don't spend a lot of time harping on research.

Steven Gundry sells food supplements, you easily mislead imbecile.

And catching Covid is safe? Funny how you won't hear about the cardiac issues that Covid causes from the fringe crowd

But I'll add one thing, it's not only ignorance, it's straight up spite and sadism from the anti-vax crowd

Because they will take any BS and try to run it as far as they can with it. Including a 2001 paper like the one it was posted yesterday

Catching covid is definitely not safe if you’re in that tiny minority that is strongly affected, mostly because the NIH advice for the infected is currently ‘Wait until it gets bad enough to go to the hospital’.

The "tiny minority" includes obese people, which are which % of Americans again?

Though I agree that recommendation to wait is not great.

That's mostly a reflection of available hospital capacity though.